Finally Bloom's review!

Jesse Brauning said:
That's a little better. :P
At least it hasn't quite been beaten to death as badly.
Canon vs. Nikon? Talk about dead horses. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

i know. and at least for still photos, Panasonic is a foe that Nikon stands a chance against, so it's a more fair fight!



:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG):2vrolijk_08:
 
The AF100 offers a field of view comparable to a 35mm movie camera.

I think if there's any reality shock, it's among folks who are finding out that 35mm movie film is nothing like 35mm stills film, and their experience with 35mm stills cameras is irrelevent in the world of cinema. A 25mm on a cinema camera will look almost the same as a 25mm on an AF100. What a 25mm looks like on an FF camera is about as irrelevant as what a 25mm looks like on a 2/3" camera.
 
OldCorpse said:
I don't understand the whole full frame photo vs film discussion. I mean, who cares - the only thing that matters is what delivers optimal performance for what you need. If I need the best possible low light performance and the widest possible FOV (without fisheye distortion etc.), then that's what I need, and I don't care if the FF on still photos don't correspond to the frame size of 35mm motion film blah, blah. I don't care. What I care about is what gives me what I need, and there's no point that I can see in getting hung up on what is called what and what historically was what. The only question in my mind is what lenses will be available and at what cost.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is as if the 5d makes the best wide shot around. Read a little bit before posting some non sense like this, the canons are considered very bad in wide shots. It been known for ages. If you browse some page before you will see a post from barry on it. What will happen in the next version of Canons is another thing.
 
The 5d Moire II is not the standard of all filmmaking people. Stop judging all of cinema by what the 5d Moire II produces
 
I sure do feel silly leaving my Cinematography class where I just listened intently to a two hour lecture on lighting, then get on this forum, and read everyone talking about how the DSLR's can shoot "amazing images" without having to "lug a big heavy light kit" to your location. And how every camera from now on will be judged by its low light settings. Perhaps I'm confused, or being taught old techniques, but when did "Photography" stop meaning "painting with light?" Or, perhaps the above methodology is the sole reason my properly lit scenes, shot on a proper HD video camera, continue to dominate the aliased low light images of the DSLR's at film festivals. Surely the judges aren't picking my work to reward me for lugging that big heavy light kit to EVERY shoot?
 
Painting with light will always mean exactly that. Sensitivity alone is meaningless as compared to the overall look. Of course, you know that, but I'm just backing you up. While a more-sensitive camera might mean you don't need as-powerful fixtures (a 150w HMI instead of a 575w HMI, for example) you will still need AS MANY fixtures as you did before.

I think there's conflicting ideas floating around with the DSLR community. DSLR shooters want to believe that they no longer need lights, that they can get the "Hollywood Look" on a micro-budget. It doesn't work that way. What the DSLR does, is open up a NEW look. Light, handheld, shoot-anywhere -- that creates opportunities for a new type of cinema. If you want to make footage that looks like traditional cinema, you're going to have to go through all the same work, with all the same equipment, at all the same pace, as traditional hollywood-looking work has demanded.

It's like the Dogme95 thing. The folks who started that wanted to create a new type of film, like a new "french wave" or whatever. But it got co-opted by no-budget folks who thought "great! shooting on a DV camera has now been legitimized, so I can shoot handheld with no lights and everyone will take me seriously." That wasn't what Dogme95 was about at all.

Philip Bloom talks about the DSLR opening up new opportunities like lighting more with practicals instead of dedicated light fixtures. In that way, you might not need to carry around quite as "big & heavy" of a light kit, but you're still going to need to place those lights where they belong, and control them, and augment them with lights from your "not as big & heavy" light kit, if you want it to look good.
 
DCTBradJohnson said:
I sure do feel silly leaving my Cinematography class where I just listened intently to a two hour lecture on lighting, then get on this forum, and read everyone talking about how the DSLR's can shoot "amazing images" without having to "lug a big heavy light kit" to your location. And how every camera from now on will be judged by its low light settings. Perhaps I'm confused, or being taught old techniques, but when did "Photography" stop meaning "painting with light?" Or, perhaps the above methodology is the sole reason my properly lit scenes, shot on a proper HD video camera, continue to dominate the aliased low light images of the DSLR's at film festivals. Surely the judges aren't picking my work to reward me for lugging that big heavy light kit to EVERY shoot?
Click to expand...

first of all you have to understand your audience here. no offense to the forum but let's be honest. a large percentage of people here are just hobbyist amateurs with no real cinematography experience or knowledge. to them what constitutes "amazing images" is quite different than what a professional in hollywood who utilizes proper lighting considers amazing. There's a lot of top notch guys here too who are absolute pros and do know these things so I'm not referring to them, but a huge amount of people here are buying these cameras not for this high end but to continue shooting home made looking hand held videos with no concept of lighting.
Yes these people will never garner festival honors. Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else? most top shorts are still shot on film or high end digital like Red, which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)
 
All beautiful scenes are lit, always by the eye of the cinematographer, but not necessarily by the hand of the cinematographer. Available light can be very beautiful, but it has it's limitations; it's not available for hours, often only moments, and it limits camera placement to the sweet spot. Sometimes the architect has done the lighting for us; again, this has limitations of where we can shoot.

For scenes requiring the hands as well as the eyes, more sensitive films and sensors have indeed changed the lighting, but only the power of the fixtures; we still need exactly the same number in exactly the same places. There is no exception to this. None. So we may need only a 2k instead of a 5K Fresnel, but we can't simply omit it.

I might add that if we are shooting with a daylight window in the background, higher sensitivity has NO effect; we still need enough punch to prevent the window blowing out. Same thing with exteriors.

So, we may no longer lug a big, heavy light kit; we lug a somewhat lighter weight light kit!

Anyone saying modern camera obviate the need for lighting is too stupid to be allowed near a motion picture camera.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Homunculus said:
Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else?
Click to expand...
Our short "Depth of Phil", shot on the GH1, was accepted into South By Southwest (SXSW), considered widely to be one of the top 10 film festivals in the world.

which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)
Click to expand...
Of course, Depth of Phil was shot using a great crew, professional lighting, an awesome cinematographer, etc. Some of our equipment was a lot lower-grade than you'd need with a big camera (at one point we used a light stand as a tripod, fer cryin' out loud) but still, all the same techniques were there, if with less weight and cost sometimes.
 
Barry_Green said:
Our short "Depth of Phil", shot on the GH1, was accepted into South By Southwest (SXSW), considered widely to be one of the top 10 film festivals in the world.


Of course, Depth of Phil was shot using a great crew, professional lighting, an awesome cinematographer, etc. Some of our equipment was a lot lower-grade than you'd need with a big camera (at one point we used a light stand as a tripod, fer cryin' out loud) but still, all the same techniques were there, if with less weight and cost sometimes.
Click to expand...

Ah wow... I did not know you were involved in Depth of Phil, I thought Jack Daniel Stanley did that? I have worked with someone recnetly who shot a film with JDS as well I know he's very good.

Yes Depth of Phil looked amazing for gh1 and the acting was top notch, that's very encouraging that it was accepted in SXSW but you surely must agree that's a huge anomaly! Then again I'm not super familiar with other top 10 festivals OTHER THAN the big 3 (cannes tribeca sundance) but from my experience those big 3 I'm not sure if a DSLR short was ever accepted into them though prior to DSLR revolution I know DVX100 shorts were like Tze Chun's Window Breaker etc.
Do you know of any other DSLR shorts accepted into any top festivals, and where can I watch Depth of Phil I've been dying to see it
 
Homunculus said:
Yes these people will never garner festival honors. Honestly I have never even heard of a DSLR short being accepted into a top festival like sundance/tribeca/cannes, has anyone else? most top shorts are still shot on film or high end digital like Red, which generally means they are also shot with a competent crew and thousands of dollars of professional lighting and the professionals required to utilize that lighting to its highest advantage (DP, electricians, gaffers, grips...etc)
Click to expand...

You don't spend enough time at these festivals. Joe SwanBerg and the Duplass bros (two of the most adored festival darlings in recent years) have had films accepted shot on MUCH lower quality cameras than a GH1. And these films looked a LONG way from slick and professional. You think these fests have some mandate against DSLR? Why would they?

Besides which, if you see Depth of Phil, you would never know what it was shot on, nor would you ever care.
 
Jack and I are frequently a team, we've teamed up on quite a few films (Cold Calls... Unawakening... Little Mouth To Feed... Depth of Phil... Shady, Texas... and I may be forgetting some too).

Festivals don't know or care about what camera something was shot on. Cold Calls got into the Delta program of the Tribeca film festival, and that was shot on an HPX170 with a Letus Ultimate. Little Mouth To Feed played the opening-night red-carpet gala at Slamdance last year, another of the top 10, and that was shot on an HVX200 with a prototype Letus Extreme. Unawakening was an HPX500, and DoP and Shady were both GH1. (UN-HACKED GH1, I might add).

Jack's site at www.frenchquarterfeatures.com has at least trailers, if not full-length versions, of all his films.

If you want to see Unawakening and LMTF, you can see them on the order page for our Lighting For Film & Television DVD. We produced those films with cinematography legend Macgregor, specifically to document the making of and lighting of them, for our lighting DVD.
 
Mark Harris said:
You don't spend enough time at these festivals. Joe SwanBerg and the Duplass bros (two of the most adored festival darlings in recent years) have had films accepted shot on MUCH lower quality cameras than a GH1. And these films looked a LONG way from slick and professional. You think these fests have some mandate against DSLR? Why would they?

Besides which, if you see Depth of Phil, you would never know what it was shot on, nor would you ever care.
Click to expand...

well depends what you mean. I'm not familiar with the films you mentioned were they shot recently or in "recent years" i.e. mid 2000's before the "DSLR revolution"? as I said there were films shot on dvx100 etc that were accepted into top festivals (some consider DVX100 of lesser quality than DSLR's). But nowadays I don't think you'll find much shot on DSLR at the top festivals, and certainly not in the Academy Award category of "Best Short Film" considering the Oscar has a strict stipulation that any short nominated must be on film (either shot on, or printed on 35mm).

Furthermore, I've personally spoken to a top short film programmer for sundance festival and they expressed to me the same sentiment that rarely if ever have they had DSLR shorts.

The reason? Is there a 'mandate against it' as you suggest? No ofcourse not. The reason is simply that there seems to be a natural order to things, which is that shorts that are that high in quality enough to be accepted at a top festival, are generally shot by very professional and top quality / talented people. And pro/top quality talented people generally shoot these shorts on top of the line equipment, i.e. film or high end digital whether it is Red or Cinealta, or whatever.
So no there's no mandate against it, it just NATURALLY seems to filter that way that you will not see DSLR shorts at a top film festival. Yes a few years ago you would see things that perhaps are regarded as lower than DSLR's right now (like DVX100) but that was a few years ago, it's irrelevant to what I'm talking about now because you could easily say well in the 1990's there must of been stuff accepted at Sundance that was shot on Super Hi-8 camcorders or whatever, and sure that may be the case but that's simply because the technology was limited back then.

So yes as Barry Green said festivals don't care nor even check what camera you used, so I'm not suggesting this dearth of DSLR shorts at top festivals has anything to do with the festivals themselves, it doesn't. It has to do with the naturally occurring fact that guys who are shooting these top shorts are not using DSLR's. Yes there's an odd exception here or there, rmemeber the saying exceptions don't make the rule, that is why they are called exceptions.

And yes Barry you cited Hpx, HVX, etc. That is rare also but far more common. These cameras are way above DSLR in quality. HVX with letus is the closest thing to Red One footage under 20k probably. So I'm not really talking about those as they are far more expensive and professional setups than a simple DSLR is considering the Letus adaptor itself costs more than most DSLR bodies.

But my point is that I am very much hoping that AF100 will become a festival staple and not be a red headed step child as DSLR's are at the highest level
 
Homunculus said:
I don't think you'll find much shot on DSLR at the top festivals, and certainly not in the Academy Award category of "Best Short Film" considering the Oscar has a strict stipulation that any short nominated must be on film (either shot on, or printed on 35mm).
Click to expand...
Certainly not anything against the DSLR there -- James Longley had two films nominated for Oscars, one for best short, one for best documentary, and both were shot on a DVX100. Murderball was nominated for best doc, and it was a DVX100 film. Anything can be transferred to film...

The reason is simply that there seems to be a natural order to things, which is that shorts that are that high in quality enough to be accepted at a top festival, are generally shot by very professional and top quality / talented people. And pro/top quality talented people generally shoot these shorts on top of the line equipment, i.e. film or high end digital whether it is Red or Cinealta, or whatever.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. Why? Because it looks "better"? Not really. It's because shooting on a DSLR is a pain in the rectum. It's inconvenient and plagued with hassles, and I don't know many working pros who want or need more hassle in their life, so they go with what works.

I'm not suggesting this dearth of DSLR shorts at top festivals has anything to do with the festivals themselves, it doesn't. It has to do with the naturally occurring fact that guys who are shooting these top shorts are not using DSLR's. Yes there's an odd exception here or there, rmemeber the saying exceptions don't make the rule, that is why they are called exceptions.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the case. Nobody's saying you can't do great work with a DSLR, but what we are saying is "why the hell would you?!??!" when there are other, better choices out there.

Why did I do Depth of Phil and Shady, Texas on a GH1? A few reasons. One, we wanted to see how good the GH1 could do, so that was a factor. And Jack wanted to experiment with the tiny-cam to see how it might work out if we wanted to do something with multiple cameras, opening up options. But neither of those were the reasons I wrote the checks to fund those films. I spent nearly five figures on those films because I intended to produce a training DVD for GH1 users on how to make outstanding films on one of these micro-cameras.

But you know what? I never finished it. Why? Well, one reason is because the market shifted and the Canons came along, which meant that fewer folks were looking at the GH1, but the main reason is: shooting with a DSLR-style camera sucks. I couldn't endorse it. I mean, sure, for some shots, you can do some neat things, but -- all too often it's just the wrong tool for the job. My opinion, and I'm entitled to it, so those who think the DSLR is the second coming of the messiah can have their opinion too. But I just couldn't, and still don't, see the point of trying to integrate one of those things into a film-style shoot. No thanks.

Now, while thousands of microbudgeteers have embraced the DSLR for its undeniable attributes (shallow DOF, low cost, and frequently outstanding footage), there's a lot more to it than that.

Heck, it's like 16mm film. Lots of guys used to aspire to shooting 16mm, back when the DVX was all the rage 16mm was thought of as this holy grail, of being a "real" filmmaker. But nobody who ever shot on 16mm, and then goes up to 35mm, ever goes back down to 16mm! It's just more hassle than it's worth.

That's why I say I don't really care if the AF100 has more dynamic range, or more sharpness, or is a quarter stop more or less sensitive, than a 5D. None of that matters. I wouldn't use a 5D because I don't want to use that kind of product in a cinema-style shoot. The AF100 solves so many problems that even if its footage was inferior, it'd still be the preferred choice. The fact that it happens to totally solve the aliasing and the purple/orange moire and is way sharper, is a bonus. But if someone comes along and "proves" that the 5D has 1/2-stop more dynamic range, I would not care one jot nor tittle. Because the AF100 still has SDI output, full-res 1080p 4:2:2 at 24PsF, and it delivers moire/alias-free footage, and it takes PL lenses, and it can record high-quality audio, and it does variable frame rates, and it even has a headphone jack, and two tripod screwholes so it'll actually stay straight on a quick-release plate, on and on and on and on...
But my point is that I am very much hoping that AF100 will become a festival staple and not be a red headed step child as DSLR's are at the highest level
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that it will be exactly such. It really depends on how someone wants to work. For those to whom filmmaking is wandering around downtown and catching random people in random poses, then the DSLR will likely be king - and there's not a thing in the world wrong with that. But for those who are doing conventional narrative cinema-style shooting and have a little bit of budget and a paid (even $100/day) crew and insurance, I expect the AF100 to dominate that group.
 
Last edited:
jeez he's a sticky generating machine. I must agree that is very accurate on all points. Yes it's the hassle of having to do all these ridiculous work arounds on DSLR that should be a given with a real camera made for CINEMA not stills.

I'm wanting to take my productions up to the next level and can no longer settle for no hdmi out, abysmal noise levels, inability to pull focus because of either poor LCD resolution or no hdmi out, and other things of that nature.
I don't even care about moire, aliasing as GH1 never had too much of a problem with that to be honest. I care about in order:

1. good dynamic range. to me this is the single biggest difference between film/red/alexa and low level digital/dslr

2. proper skin tones not compressed mush that turns everyone's face into nasty purple blobs.

3. low level noise levels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top